An Inner-City Asthma Disease Management Initiative
- 6 Downloads
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a recently implemented disease management programme [Asthma Control and Education Program (ACE)] on patient outcomes (clinical and functional) and on resource utilisation in socio-economically disadvantaged (and largely Hispanic) individuals with asthma treated at Hartford Hospital.
Design and Setting: Using standardised measures (i.e. the Health Status Questionnaire [HSQ] and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) and conducting serial assessments the investigators determined: (i) functional status at intake and follow-up; (ii) change in the level of illness severity over time; (iii) patientss’ acquisition of self-management skills; and (iv) the type and frequency of acute care services utilised pre- and post-enrolment in ACE.
Patient Population:The study participants consisted of consenting individuals, aged 18 years or older, enrolled in ACE from 1 January 1997 to 30 September 1998. Each individual had a comprehensive intake interview (data collected included clinical and financial status) followed by 3 educational sessions.
Results: While only 34.7% (n = 282) of the 813 patients referred from Hartford Hospital to physicians or emergency department services elected to participate in the programme, 60% of participants completed the educational sessions. 73% of these enrollees returned for the 3-month follow-up.
On the HSQ, the mean Physical Composite Summary (PCS) scores increased from 33.3 ± 10.01 at baseline to 41.6 ± 11.48 at the 3-month follow up and 45.3 ± 10.30 at the 6-month follow-up. In an analysis using only those patients (n = 50) with HSQ scores at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-ups, there were statistically significant increases in both the PCS and the Mental Composite Summary scores (p < 0.001).
For the 68 patients with severity data at baseline, 3 months and 6 months there was a statistically significant improvement over time (p < 0.001). For example, 4.4% had severe disease at 6 months versus 69.1% at baseline. A subset of 73 patients for whom pre-ACE data were available realised a 37% reduction in emergency department use and a 52% reduction in in-patient visits.
Conclusions: The evaluation of disease management programmes requires outcomes data. The results of this study of an asthma disease management programme indicate there was an improvement in overall functioning, illness severity, self-management, and utilisation of inpatient and emergency department services. Although a cause and effect relationship could not be assumed, the results suggest that the disease management model is an effective one for the studied population of inner-city patients, socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals previously identified as high utilisers of healthcare services and as having significant environmental exposures problematic for patients with asthma. As currently designed, however, this programme does not address the healthcare needs of the large number of referred patients who choose not to enrol or the enrollees (40%) who do not complete the education and follow-up sessions.
KeywordsAsthma Adis International Limited Disease Management Programme Educational Session Health Status Questionnaire
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Rice DP, Hodgson TA, Kopstein AN. The economic costs of illness: a replication and update. Health Care Finan Rev 1985; 7: 61–80Google Scholar
- 4.Goethe JW, Gerulaitis ML, Szarek BL, et al. Measuring outcome: a post-discharge assessment model. In: Mirin SM, Gossett JT, Grob MC, editors. Psychiatric treatment: advances in outcome research. Washington, DC: APA Press, 1991: 293–309Google Scholar
- 9.Kulbok PA, Baldwin JH. From preventive health behavior to health promotion: advancing a positive construct of health. Adv Nurs Sci 1992; 14(4): 50–64Google Scholar
- 11.Hyner GC. Strategy for planning and evaluating health risk appraisal and screening interventions. J Health Educ 1995; 26(6): 345–52Google Scholar
- 14.National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Data Fact Sheet, Asthma Statistics, 1992 MayGoogle Scholar
- 17.US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Healthy people 2000: midcourse review and 1995 revisions. Boston (MA): Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996: 6–9, 239Google Scholar
- 19.National Institutes of Health. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. International consensus report on diagnosis and management of asthma. Eur Respir J 1992; 5: 601–41Google Scholar
- 20.Health Status Questionnaire. Bloomington (MN): Health Outcomes Institute, 1993Google Scholar
- 21.Ware Jr JE. The SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston (MA): The Health Intstitute, New England Medical Center, 1993Google Scholar
- 24.Os’Conner GT, Weis ST. Clinical and symptom measures. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149(2 Pt 2): S21–S28Google Scholar
- 26.Headrick L, Krain E, Evens D, et al. National Asthma Education Prevention Program Working Group on the Quality of Asthma Care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 154 Suppl.: SA891Google Scholar